The overall COHIP showed excellent scale reliability overall and test-retest reliability. Both discriminant and convergent validity of the COHIP were supported by the comparisons among and within the four groups of children. Further testing will examine the utility of the instrument in both clinical and epidemiological samples.

Traditionally, child oral health has been assessed using clinical parameters of disease and deformity. However, there is a growing interest in the psychosocial impact of oral health among children. This commentary outlines the value and need for assessing child oral health-related quality of life (COHQoL). COHQoL has implications for oral health needs assessment (at an individual and population level) and for evaluating outcomes from specific treatments, initiatives and dental services overall. In addition, it could prove to be a useful adjunct tool for evidence-based dentistry research and practice. Theoretical and practical considerations in assessing the complex psychosocial construct of oral health among children are discussed: the use of general versus oral health-specific measures, the development of tools for children, the use of generic versus condition-specific measures, and the measurement of 'positive' oral health. Recommendations for research and practice are presented.

results help to define successful aging as a multidimensional construct having both objective and subjective dimensions, provide greater clarity regarding its correlates, and increase understanding of its modifiable aspects.

Results add rigor to the measurement of a construct that has intrigued philosophers and scientists for hundreds of years, providing the empirical foundation on which to build research about successful aging.

Objectives This study assessed the reliability and validity of the Child Oral Health Impact Profile–Short Form 19 (COHIP-SF 19) from the validated 34-item COHIP. Methods Participants included 205 pediatric, 107 orthodontic, and 863 patients with craniofacial anomalies (CFAs). Item level evaluations included examining content overlap, distributional properties, and use of the response set. Confirmatory factor analysis identified potential items for deletion. Scale reliability was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. Discriminant validity of the COHIP-SF 19 was evaluated as follows: among pediatric participants, scores were compared with varying amounts of decayed and filled surfaces (DFS) and presence of caries on permanent teeth; for orthodontic patients, scores were correlated with anterior tooth spacing/crowding; and for those with CFA, scores were compared with clinicians’ ratings of extent of defect (EOD) for nose and lip and/or speech hypernasality. Convergent validity was assessed by examining the partial Spearman correlation between the COHIP scores and a standard Global Health self-rating. Comparisons between the COHIP and the COHIP-SF 19 were completed across samples. Results The reduced questionnaire consists of 19 items: Oral Health (five items), Functional Well-Being (four items), and a combined subscale named Socio-Emotional Well-Being (10 items). Internal reliability is ≥0.82 for the three samples. Results demonstrate that the COHIP-SF 19 discriminates within and across treatment groups by EOD and within a community-based pediatric sample. The measure is associated with the Global Health rating (P < 0.05), thereby indicating convergent validity. Conclusions Reliability and validity testing demonstrate that the COHIP-SF 19 is a psychometrically sound instrument to measure oral health-related quality of life across school-aged pediatric populations.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective-This study investigated depressive symptomatology in lung cancer patients and their identified caregiver.Methods-We conducted semi-structured interviews and administered measures of family environment, depressive symptomatology, and the extent to which the caregiver blamed the cancer on the patient not having taken better care of him/herself to 190 patient-caregiver dyads. Multivariate two-level models were used to estimate the unique effects for each dyad member and cross-partner effects while controlling for interdependencies in the data.Results-More than half of patients (55%) were male but 74% of caregivers were female. The majority (57.4%) were spouses, followed by offspring and other family or friends The baseline model with covariates showed that younger caregivers, spouse caregivers, and caregivers who blamed the patient for the cancer had higher depressive symptom scores. When examining the unique effect for each dyad member, with the exception of patient report of familial conflict, patient and caregiver reports of lower familial cohesion and expressiveness and higher conflict were associated with higher depression scores for patient and caregiver respectively. When examining cross-partner effects, patient reports of lower cohesion, lower expressiveness and greater conflict were associated with higher caregiver depression scores. Offspring caregivers reported less depression than non-offspring caregivers. Conclusion-The family environment and blaming the patient during times of illness can affect both patient and caregiver depression. Findings suggest that quality of the family dynamic is important for patients but may be particularly influential for caregivers. Future research should aid clinicians' assessment of family environment when making treatment plans.